Instigator / Pro
4
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#566
The existence of God is impossible
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
In one simple argument I can destroy any possibility of there being a God. The existence of God is causally impossible because in order for God to exist it would have to spontaneously appear from literally nothing as a fully developed sentient and all knowing entity. There would be nothing prior to God's existence to create whatever God is made of and nothing would exist for God to "know" because nothing would initially exist other than God, therefore God would not exist to begin with but if it did it would literally know nothing. The only way to get around this is to postulate some type of primordial quantum loop or "possibility cloud" which God spawned from and draws information from, which is equally impossible because it requires everything to both infinitely exist and not exist at the same time before existence was even a thing.
RM posted this in the comments, I did not use it for this argument as that would be cheating in a way but it may be helpful for you to read this.
Con
#2
Two simple points which shall be expanded upon in the paragraphs to follow:
First: Probably even to the point of near-certainty, does not negate possibility.
Second: God by definition exists more than most people.
First
Were this a debate on if God's existence is illogical, pro would have a strong case. As things stand, he is arguing that because his limited understanding says something is not the case, it is outright impossible. This is just the logical fallacy known as an augment from incredulity.
Our universe could (however much we dislike the notion) be a simulation. To commit an overt appeal to authority, even Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson support this. God as the lead designer, fits about any definition, and exemplifies how God could know everything when the universe was nothing.
Second
Merriam-Webster defines existence as "reality as presented in experience."
We can say anyone who has experienced God is insane, but that does not negate that tangible existence. An experience so strong it has caused countless wars, which furthers the reality of Gods impact upon the world.
God even as just a concept is one we've all experienced, to argue against this would be to claim that concepts don't exist.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Were this a debate on if God's existence is illogical, pro would have a strong case. As things stand, he is arguing that because his limited understanding says something is not the case, it is outright impossible. This is just the logical fallacy known as an augment from incredulity.
I am claiming that the rules of causality render God's existence impossible, which is an undeniable statement. We are talking about a sentient being who exists with no substance or force to bring it into existence and an all-knowing being who has no information to draw from. Not only is God's mere existence impossible, but to think the first thing that would spawn out of literal nothingness would be such a complex and perfect construct is also bonkers. My understanding may be limited, but that does not mean the downright ludicrous can be true.
Our universe could (however much we dislike the notion) be a simulation. To commit an overt appeal to authority, even Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson support this. God as the lead designer, fits about any definition, and exemplifies how God could know everything when the universe was nothing.
If this is a simulation, then it wasn't created by "God" but by some alien scientists. We are talking about the literal Abrahamic notion of "God" here specifically, the supernatural all powerful being that spawned from nothing and created everything. A cyborg alien with a quantum computer doesn't fit the definition of "God".
Merriam-Webster defines existence as "reality as presented in experience."
Are you suggesting that if I smoke PCP and see fairies then the fairies are real just because the dictionary says so?
We can say anyone who has experienced God is insane, but that does not negate that tangible existence. An experience so strong it has caused countless wars, which furthers the reality of Gods impact upon the world.
Yes, people believe in God, people do stuff in the name of God because they believe in God, this doesn't make God real at all. When I was a kid I believed I was a Jedi and did stuff in the name of the Jedi order, does that make Star Wars real?
God even as just a concept is one we've all experienced, to argue against this would be to claim that concepts don't exist.
Concepts don't exist in the way you are suggesting. If you imagine that a conceptual being exists than that being does not exist, it is in fact just chemicals and electricity in your brain creating the notion that it exists. The actual being still doesn't exist.
Con
#4
just because the dictionary says so
To have a debate in English, means exactly that. Oranges for example are generally orange, you can hold a debate that they are secretly blue, but you'll be proven wrong pretty much instantly because words have meaning.
Just to remove any doubt that this seals my victory, more than 55% (or 4.2 billion people) of the world population actively believes in God; while they may be illogical, God's existence through their experience is not in question. In fact the more illogical that is, the more it suggests they've had some experience with God strong enough to devote their lives to such a belief system.
To be sporting, I'll address the remaining points...
I am claiming that the rules of causality render God's existence impossible, which is an undeniable statement.
Denied. Not understanding the cause of something, does not make it impossible that there is one. Using the simulation example, you are insisting that a simulation could never exist because there were things outside it which caused it. Granted people used to argue against the Big Bang Theory on the same basis (in spite of observable evidence), that since they did not know the cause of it, the universe must have always existed; common wisdom now disagrees.
If this is a simulation, then it wasn't created by "God" but by some alien scientists. ... A cyborg alien
Thank you for weakening your own case with such a silly straw-man fallacy. You're agreeing that it's possibly a simulation, but impossible that anyone involved could have been come to be known locally as God because you don't know if God is a cyborg, and all beings that run simulations are cyborgs. Going back to the Scientific America article I previously shared, which wrote of an event attended by many physicists (whose job requires them to regularly run simulations) but not one mention of them being aliens or cyborgs was made (the attendance even one "cyborg alien with a quantum computer," would have overshadowed everything else at the event and the rest of the year's news-cycle).
Back to the dictionary side tangents...
does that make Star Wars real?
Are you trying to argue that The Existence of Star Wars is Impossible? It would be fine if you want to move the goalpost that that. Star Wars is of course not historically accurate, but people do not pay out billions to see it in theater if it's a blank screen and no sound.
Concepts don't exist in the way you are suggesting ... it is in fact just chemicals and electricity in your brain creating
Thank you for conceding that God has physical existence (even if a limited one). ... Pretty much to backtrack on this, you would need to deny humans exist (along with everything else), since we're walking piles of chemicals and electric impulses.
Round 3
Pro
#5
To have a debate in English, means exactly that. Oranges for example are generally orange, you can hold a debate that they are secretly blue, but you'll be proven wrong pretty much instantly because words have meaning.
Definitions are not always so clear cut. Language itself is socially constructed so the definition of "blue" could be changed to "orange" and if everyone went along with it then that would be how it is. But more to the point, when you get to more abstract philosophical definitions, there will undoubtedly be some issues with the perspective/outlook of the ones writing the dictionary. No human truly understands the nature of existence in a complete sense, and to top it off you merely cherry picked one interpretation of the word "existence" to begin with. There are multiple definitions pertaining to multiple contexts and schools of thought.
Just to remove any doubt that this seals my victory, more than 55% (or 4.2 billion people) of the world population actively believes in God; while they may be illogical, God's existence through their experience is not in question. In fact the more illogical that is, the more it suggests they've had some experience with God strong enough to devote their lives to such a belief system.
I couldn't care less what people believe. In fact, this should be so obvious as a non-issue to any thinking person that it doesn't even warrant rebuttal. For the sake of smoking PCP though I will address it. Humans believe things that aren't true all the time and there are countless conflicting beliefs which are believed by many people. What makes you think one idea is more valid just because it is believed by a larger number of superstitious apes?
Denied. Not understanding the cause of something, does not make it impossible that there is one. Using the simulation example, you are insisting that a simulation could never exist because there were things outside it which caused it. Granted people used to argue against the Big Bang Theory on the same basis (in spite of observable evidence), that since they did not know the cause of it, the universe must have always existed; common wisdom now disagrees.
What's this, straw-manning my argument by claiming that I am claiming God is impossible just because I don't understand how it could be possible when in fact my argument is based on the known laws of logic and causality are we? Also you are straw-manning by claiming that I am insisting that a simulation could never exist. Do you not understand the causal difference between a simulation made in a computer and a magic God that literally pops out of nothing?
As for the big bang theory I actually do not believe in that either, but at least it has a theoretical basis. There is literally no evidence of God and hence you automatically lose because thus far you have provided no evidence and a bunch of word salads while I have presented a sound argument.
Thank you for weakening your own case with such a silly straw-man fallacy. You're agreeing that it's possibly a simulation, but impossible that anyone involved could have been come to be known locally as God because you don't know if God is a cyborg, and all beings that run simulations are cyborgs. Going back to the Scientific America article I previously shared, which wrote of an event attended by many physicists (whose job requires them to regularly run simulations) but not one mention of them being aliens or cyborgs was made (the attendance even one "cyborg alien with a quantum computer," would have overshadowed everything else at the event and the rest of the year's news-cycle).
You're clearly mentally unwell, which is not ad-hominem but an observation which in and of itself brings the validity of your claims into question. By fixating on the term "alien cyborg" you are completely ignoring the actual point. A simulation is completely different from a magic God-spirit which manifests from nothing. God cannot exist because of causality and probability, some entity or group creating a simulation in a laboratory is not the same as a perfect infallible being self assembling and creating the universe from nothing.
You seem to be less interested in the truth than you are in misrepresenting my arguments.
Are you trying to argue that The Existence of Star Wars is Impossible? It would be fine if you want to move the goalpost that that. Star Wars is of course not historically accurate, but people do not pay out billions to see it in theater if it's a blank screen and no sound.
Star Wars exists as a concept and as a work of fiction, that doesn't mean Darth Vader is out there force-choking people in a galaxy far far away. You would need an extraordinarily infantile intellect not to see the difference.
Thank you for conceding that God has physical existence (even if a limited one). ... Pretty much to backtrack on this, you would need to deny humans exist (along with everything else), since we're walking piles of chemicals and electric impulses.
This is an absolute train-wreck for you assuming the voters have any brains. Your atrocious reading comprehension speaks for itself
You are literally tying your own noose, will you hang yourself in the final round or have you learned your lesson?
Con
#6
There are multiple definitions pertaining to multiple contexts and schools of thought.
No counter definition has been provided, nor any reason why the offered one is invalid. I do not see how pro has proven his point by any definition, let alone a majority as would be required for said existence to be outright impossible (especially that he's the one bringing up how varied existence can be said to be).
Pro has further conceded by multiple standards that God in fact does exist (as a concept, as chemicals to give physical reality, etc.).
On the topic of definitions, we do not have a clear definition for God with which to deem the existence impossible.
if everyone went along with it then that would be how it is. ... I couldn't care less what people believe ... What makes you think one idea is more valid just because it is believed by a larger number of superstitious apes?
Quite the interesting contradictions from pro. While I do not personally agree that a majority opinion defines measurable reality (e.g., where something falls on the light spectrum), for the sake of argument I accept pro's further concession that belief makes things real.
straw-manning my argument by claiming that I am claiming God is impossible just because I don't understand
Straw manning being caught straw-manning, nicely done. The straw-man fallacy I pointed out had to do with pro insisting (maybe it was an attempt to challenge my sources?) that simulations do not exist unless they are made by alien cyborgs (my sources nor I made any mention of cyborgs, so if not a straw-man, where did they come from?). My case had made clear creation and future knowledge can happen from outside a universe (as seen with simulations); even if those inside will have no way to understand.
A simulation is completely different from a magic God-spirit ... infallible being self assembling and creating the universe from nothing.
As my sources repeatedly pointed out, from the perspective inside a simulation, how would we know the difference?
Besides, to quote Arthur C. Clark: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Voting Categories
Quick review for voters...
- Arguments: If pro proved that "The [reality as presented in experience] of God is impossible," he has earned this point.Not proven mere improbability, but outright impossibility.
- Sources: I had nine integrated, and well enough that they began to be reused. However, I only win this if any were of notable quality.
- S&G: Tied. Neither of us were illegible.
- Conduct: I suggest re-reading pro's final paragraph.
Pro's Star Wars Tangent:
Star Wars exists as a concept and as a work of fiction
Key word: "exists." I already pointed out it's fiction ("not historically accurate"), so I am very unclear as to the point of complaining about movies that exist; or for that matter how Darth Vader disproves the very possibility of God's existence.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forf.... wait what?
This one was easy.
The resolution as outlined was that God is impossible. In my view pro has to provide some Justification as to why God is not just unlikely, but impossible. Pro argues that Gods implicit spontaneous self generation renders him impossible. I felt con highlighted this well in R2 - that the Big Bang has the same issue - yet we exist and no realize that there is no issue. I feel this slightly edges out pros argument.
On top of this, pro was clearly unable to beat cons semantic definitional argument, I normally give tremendous leeway to the victims of this form of semantic chicanery, but pro doesn’t appear to offer any semantic response, with his star wars point it seems pro doesn’t realize that pro is talking about figurative not literal existence.
As a result pro marginally fails his arguments and loses the counter argument. Arguments to con.
While I would normally give Conduct to pro here due to the semantics, pros called con mentally ill, and his last paragraph was pretty substantial violation of debate etiquette. Language and manners always beats semantic mark downs. Conduct to con also.
All other points tied.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in Comments.
God might exist. I hope not.
Thanks for the debate.
If you'd ever like some help, let me know.
Good job.
Vote Reported: GeneralGrant // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: Full points to con
RFD: Con had better arguments, besides no one can definitely prove the material existence or non existence of God.
Reason for mod decision: This vote fails to meet the COC standards
Thanks. It’ll be removed when I get home. Thanks
GeneralGrant's vote should be removed because he is literally basing his vote on pure bias. If you look at his debate with RM he is basically a blindly adherent theist with no reason to back up his beliefs, so obviously his vote is based on pure stupidity and should not count.
Thanks for voting... However, you should spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules
A mod will be deleting your current vote shortly.
Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD
Conduct:
Pro said, "You are literally tying your own noose". I think Pro should have been describing himself when saying this so it would be more accurate.
Reason for mod decision: This vote is not sufficient.
Thanks for voting on this debate, I hope it was an enjoyable read.
Ramshutu,
I did not intend to use semantics nearly as badly as I did (I forgot the argument I had meant to use until R3, and by then it was way too late to introduce), but thank you for reminding me what a bad habit it is. Part of the problem for me is that I've really studied theology (went to a Catholic university), so even within the general Abrahamic God, there's so many different visions of that concept even within any one holy book about him (Genesis for example, has two contradicting creation myths).
RationalMadman,
That link had some really good arguments, and I do wish he had read it to refine and strengthen his case.
When I introduced the simulation argument, I made no specifications on the type of simulation, I had zero thought about aliens (or "cyborg aliens"). I intended it just to show how limited our understanding of the universe is, and how various other possibilities exist and are logically supported. To quote Deadpool (2015, #21): "Elon Musk says we're living inside a hologram, so who really gives a @#$ if I throw a few penguins? I'm a simulated life-form living inside the brains of your simulated life. Think about it." ... Had I intended this to go as semantics as it became, I would have just said God is the FSM, and proceeded to quote The Gospel about the unintelligent design of the universe.
What you and many others don't understand, with this debate in particular and many others, is that it is largely philosophical and requires REASON rather than just empirical data. For a "rational" madman you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding this. That being said, it requires one to THINK rather than just fall back on sources, and as it stands, the majority of debaters here spend their time constantly and robotically falling back on sources rather than using their own brains.
You should both spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Vote Reported: tbryson // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and spelling
RFD: he has no reason to be swayed
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC
RFD 1/3
The only Source that Pro used the entire debate was a link I gave him in the comments to help him, especially as he's ranked so low, in the hopes he'd have a fair chance in the fight. The Source in question was used to explicitly state that he will be completely ignoring the contents of it as he sees that as cheating and implied that any link to what was contained in the given Source was purely accidental. Aside from the stupidity of this (because he used a few lines of logic from the Source and could have help up far, far better had he read the Source and altered the wording, accrediting the Source for inspiration), he essentially never once used a reliable Source FOR HIS ARGUMENTS TO HOLD WEIGHT. Not even once, in elaboration, were Sources used to give weight to cited theories and/or facts. Con used Sources to show that simulated-reality is a well-respected theory amongst NASA puppets and since NASA is well-respected, that's actually better than what Pro did. He also used a Pew-Research link to back up that ~55% (and upwards) believe in God in the world, at present. Pew research is extremely reliable for statistics and estimation, being a world renowned non-partisan think tank dedicated to providing the most solid stats there are. Anyone who doesn't respect Pew Research is a fucking dunce who probably believes the Earth is a Globe and that the NASA link is more reliable *pukes*. Stats don't lie; PhotoShop and Groupthink do. No doubt about it, we are onto real deal justification for the Sources vote going to Con. Heck, it's done, that's enough to justify the Sources-point.
RFD 2/3
Arguments revolved around whether or not God was defined as the Judeo-Christian all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God or if God was defined simply as that being that created this Universe and even other universes, potentially. I think the only thing I agree with Type1 on is that you can’t have a group of supreme aliens be ‘God’, it’s surely twisting semantics too much to have God be the name of a group of demigods. Con doesn’t really fight Pro on the notion of polytheism though, so it is neither here nor there. Con argues that ‘God’ is flexible enough a word to fit any creator of reality as we know it, at all. I am not just biased because I firmly believe in God and that reality is simulated, which did tickle my pickle in the right ways that Ragnar was supporting simulation-theory, but am open-minded here… The thing is, there was no agreed upon definition of God before the debate. Neither the short-description (on the page of debates) or long-description (seen inside the debate) had a listed definition of God being restricted to the kind that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. As there was not specific nature of the God required for Ragnar to agree to when clicking ‘Accept Challenge’, it means that we must hold Type1 as the sneaky one who twisted semantics and not Ragnar who had no reason to assume it was only that God-species being discussed.
RFD 3/3
Type1 keeps trying to prove that Ragnar can’t prove that God exists but this doesn’t mean that God is impossible, just like the entirety of Star Wars, which Pro points out hilariously could all be true in theory, the point is that ‘impossible’ means can’t be true at all. You can say ‘Star Wars is impossible if the Force is not possible’ and try to prove that the Force doesn’t operate in our realm of reality, that’s fine, but you’re saying that something that operates in any imaginable realm (even beyond Reality) that is ‘God’ is IMPOSSIBLE… Ragnar corners Pro into admitting that Pro is actually the one trying to rely on groupthink more so than Ragnar. Even if the most insane version of God imaginable that only one person believes in and the majority disagree with, that God still can be real… Then Ragnar flips it back to sandwich Type1 in a BoP trap that is so RationalMadman-esque whereby he points out that the majority of humans believe in God, so either way Pro has no basis here.
Conduct to Con because Pro encourages Con to hang himself ‘literally’ and uses phrases like ‘extraordinarily infantile intellect’ to describe all who believe in God.
Also, Pro shot himself in the foot by saying definitions are social constructs. This means that ‘God’ can be made far more flexible by Con and justified as challenging the social construct that Pro presents. Con didn’t capitalise on that, but Pro genuinely lost the debate with that comment alone, had Con chosen to capitalise on it.
Your vote shouldn't even count as it's just an expression of pure bias. Giving him a conduct point even though he misrepresented my whole argument, you're a dumb ass.
"so start wiping up invisible penguin poop and practice what you preach." ???????
Yep, so start wiping up invisible penguin poop and practice what you preach.
"Of course of course.". This is a concession.
Of course of course...technically there could be an invisible purple penguin tap dancing on your head in a quantum superposition of 11th dimensional space/time. It could be pooping down the side of your face and you wouldn't even know it.
Technically anything is possible.
Elon Musk and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are puppets of NASA, to use them as reliable sources is hilarious.
They are most powerful when together, as the opposition will likely bring another fallacious element of God to patch the broken logic pointed out by that point.
None of these arguments seem to me to be convincing, especially the arguments referring to God's omnipotence. Are you willing to defend one of these (of your choice) in a debate?
http://www.humanreligions.info/god_is_impossible.html